By Dan Cronin on Wednesday, July 10, 2002 - 06:44 am:

I think the answer is correct, but - assuming that none of the exceptions at 15.403-1(b) apply -my rationale is FAR 1.108(c): "Unless otherwise specified, a specific dollar threshold for the purpose of applicability is the final anticipated dollar valude of the action, including the dollar value of all options."

By joel hoffman on Wednesday, July 10, 2002 - 06:59 am:

I don't necessaeily agree with the reasoning concerning increased efficiency for an oprion year (yes, no, maybe - depends on the type of purchase and many other factors) being related to the need for cost or pricing data.

I agree that the final dollar value, including options, determines whether or not TINA applies, per Dan's rationale. happy sails! joel

Vern:

I was interested in the response to this question because it’s one that’s been debated here.

Some have interpreted FAR 15.403-2(a) as permitting you to award a contract (that is not exempt or for which no exception to cost or pricing data applies) in the amount of $400K and exercise the option for another $400K (same price as basic contract) without obtaining cost or pricing data.

I don’t agree with this argument because FAR 1.108(c) clearly requires you to consider options when determining the anticipated dollar value of a contract.

However, I am unclear on how you would go about getting and reviewing cost or pricing data on a contract that contains an option that will not be evaluated at the time of award.

As for the Professor's answer, I agree with Dan and Joel. The Professor has reached the correct conclusion, but the supporting rationale certainly doesn't support the conclusion reached.

The "professor's" ultimate conclusion was correct, but his/her rationale came from another planet. The correct rationale is FR § 1.108(c).

I'm worried. Why don't people, including professors, know the FAR? It's important that they do. Knowing the FAR doesn't make you an obstructionist bureaucrat; it's part of what makes you a pro. How are the young people going to learn if even the "professors" can't get the simple things right?

If you don't think this matters, then buy some Worldcom stock.

By Anonymous on Wednesday, July 10, 2002 - 11:03 pm:

Speaking of World Com, check out the protest case from 2 days ago titled Global Crossing. We correctly determined Global Crossing to be non-responsible and awarded to World Com. Global protested and lost. Boy did we come out ahead on that one. One horse limping across the finish line and one that has to be dragged. By anon2 on Thursday, July 11, 2002 - 09:38 am:

Vern,

Then be grateful that you don't work for the folks I do and have worked for in the past. I am labeled an "obstructionist" and very "hard to get along with" because I read the FAR and try to follow the guidance.

I prepare a number of documents that I don't put my name on and wouldn't sign as sign as a Contracting Officer.

The young people don't learn. I have met few that actually take the time to read the FAR. "they do it because that is the way someone else told them to do it". I have actually had co-workers, nice people otherwise, become very irate with me because I tell them the FAR says you should do this or that.

It is very frustrating working for some of the civilian agencies, because of the lack of management, discipline, knowledge and training.

 By Smokey on Thursday, July 11, 2002 - 02:24 pm:

Amen anon2.....my experience with civilian agencies mirrors yours. I wonder if it is because of the relatively small dollar stuff?

By Vern Edwards on Thursday, July 11, 2002 - 03:21 pm:

anon2 and Smokey:

Be careful. Don't cast your net too widely. Some civilian agencies take the FAR very seriously.

The U.S. Small Business Adminstration, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and a west coast office of the General Services Administration have put their contracting officers through a grueling, five-day "FAR Bootcamp" -- a total immersion approach.

The attendees had to report to the course site on a Sunday evening and then work all day and into the night for a week learning about the FAR and answering questions and solving problems by researching the FAR and GAO, board, and court interpretations of FAR rules, solicitation provisions, and contract clauses. The first problem kept some people up until 2 am. Lecture was minimal; the attendees did all of the work. They learned how to find out what the FAR says and what it means and they had to defend their research and conclusions. They had to take and pass a written final exam in order to get a completion certificate. The course sites were selected so that the attendees had to be away from home and office during the entire course of training.

SSA put all of its contracting officers and senior staff through it as well as their newest trainees. SSA and NOAA attendees included GS-15s through GS-7's, and they all suffered alike. The GSA office sent not only contracting personnel, but some program personnel, as well.

This training was not only rigorous, it was expensive and took 20 people at a time out of their offices. (They could not go back for meetings or participate in conference calls.) It reflected a major commitment by the agencies' managers.

By the way -- the participants enjoyed the challenge.

Vern

Smokey & Anon-2, I'm in the same boat you're in. My agency makes it contracting officers feel like the stuff you have to scrape off the bottom of your shoe after walking through your neighbors yard. The only way things seem to change is when OIG or GAO perform an audit or investigation on our activities. The only problem there is they don't seem to happen enough.

Vern, it sure is refreshing to see that there are civilian agencies that take their contacts seriously. It makes me believe there may be a glimmer of hope for my agency.

By Eric Ottinger on Thursday, July 11, 2002 - 06:53 pm:

I was looking through AAP recently when I found the correct answer to a question, which I and some of our other regulars had debated, regarding the disposal of government furnished property.

Some of our participants argued that the property (i.e. IT and appliances used for Energy Star testing) could be abandoned and donated to charity.

I argued that this would be illegal. I should have provided the relevant FAR citations, but I failed to do that.

(This should be in the archives somewhere, but I couldn’t find it.)

AAP reminded me that the disposal priorities in FAR 45.603 must be followed in order. There is no way to shortcut the procedure.

http://www.deskbook.osd.mil/scripts/rwisapi.dll/@e_search.env?
CQ_PROCESS_LOGIN=YES&CQ_LOGIN=YES&CQ_USER_NAME=
guest&CQ_PASSWORD=guest&CQ_SAVE[SearchText]=donation&CQ_
SAVE[file_name]=81\8162.html&CQ_SAVE[docid]=73&CQ_SAVE[CQlibs]
=Ask_a_Prof&CQ_SAVE[T]=#FIRSTHIT

http://www.deskbook.osd.mil/scripts/rwisapi.dll/@e_search.env?
CQ_PROCESS_LOGIN=YES&CQ_LOGIN=YES&CQ_U
SER_NAME=guest&CQ_PASSWORD=guest&CQ_SAVE
[SearchText]=donation&CQ_SAVE[file_name]
=73\7379.html&CQ_SAVE[docid]=8779&CQ_SAVE[CQlibs]
=Ask_a_Prof&CQ_SAVE[T]=#FIRSTHIT

I find it disconcerting that we are being told that more education is the answer to many problems when our educators and other authorities frequently come up with such diverse and unreliable answers to fundamental questions. I don’t see any need to single out the AAP for abuse.

I haven’t met the person who knows everything in this career field, and none of us should be throwing stones.

Eric

By Vern Edwards on Thursday, July 11, 2002 - 08:59 pm:

Oh, I love to throw stones at Ask A Professor. DOD shouldn't put up a Q&A site and then provide wrong A's to the Q's. I know you love them, Eric. But you, too, should be pushing for them to clean up their act.

At this site we often debate things and disagree, but AAP is not a debate site.

By Vern Edwards on Friday, July 12, 2002 - 09:25 am:

Here's what I consider to be a good response from AAP. It doesn't answer the question definitively, but it openly reveals the uncertainties that envelop the issue:

http://web1.deskbook.osd.mil/askaprof/
normal/qdetail2.asp?cgiSubjectAreaID=7&cgiQuestionID=9055

By Melissa Vyress on Thursday, August 15, 2002 - 11:40 am:

I once worked for an agency that made frequent buys for the same items. I suspect this was more often than not intentional as the agency had the mentality that everything was "urgent" and wanted to award contracts quickly. By awarding under the cost and pricing data threshold, they could make awards quicker. I don't know how much taxpayer money was wasted on the repetitive procurement cycles, not to mention possible unreasonable prices on unaudited acquisitions, but I imagine it was substantial.

If options weren't required to be included in cost or pricing data, I imagine lots of contractors and agencies would skirt the C&P requirement under the guise of "option" contracts.

The place I worked for also had an assembly line mentality where there was little time to read and digest FAR. You just did things because someone in the policy and compliance office said it was so. I'm not questioning professionalism or intellect of procurement analysts. And I'm not one of these "strictly by the book" people, but it is important for those on the acquisition floor to be familiar with FAR and supplemental regs such as DFARS, AFARS, etc.

By Harvey Rabinawitz on Monday, August 26, 2002 - 10:52 am: